Billy wrote:

Since we seem to have jumped the tracks here anyway, let me just
observe that the only people left in the industrialized world who
don't know about the deleterious health effects of HFCS must be
watchers of FOX NEWS (Murdoch & Co.), and, therefore, supporters of
Glen Beck, and Sarah Palin.


HFCS is not significantly worse than cane sugar or beet sugar or
honey. All four are made up of approximately the same proportions of
glucose and fructose. That doesn't mean HFCS is good for you, quite
the opposite; it means sugar and honey are worse for you than ppl think.

The food industry in the USA switched from sugar to HFCS because
protective tariffs made the price of sugar too high to use it in
products where HFCS could be substituted (an that means just about
everything except candy.) The corn-ethanol for fuel craze has raised
the cost of HFCS to where sugar (even with the tariff) is almost
competitive again, so food companies are starting to switch back.

Americans (myself included) get way too many of our calories from
fructose and alcohol. The actual delivery vehicles are not that
important except for the ubiquity of the fructose. But reverting from
HFCS to sucrose won't really help.

I liked Sarah Palin before she got popular, but I don't watch
mainstream media, Fox News or otherwise (and especially not AM radio.)

Best regards,
Bob